7.  The applicants, Ms Sinikka Kukkola and Ms Salme Kukkola were joint owners of the real property Kukkola (registered as number 1:120) comprising 32 hectares, until the death of Ms Sinikka Kukkola. Ms Salme Kukkola, being the sole heir of Sinikka Kukkola, inherited the real property and is now its sole owner. Ms Salme Kukkola was born in 1945 and lives in Pertunmaa.
The “activity prohibition”
8.  In 1989 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) declared that the white-backed woodpecker should be afforded particular protection pursuant to Section 16 (c) of the 1923 Nature Conservation Act (luonnonsuojelulaki, lagen om naturskydd 71/1923).
9.  In 1992 the Ministry of the Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet) drew up a provisional plan for the protection of the species and invited the County Administrative Boards (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) to comment thereon. The plan was to be confirmed subsequently. In the provisional plan some 20 hectares of the applicants' forest was included in section II of the plan which covered areas where the woodpecker was seen occasionally and which could not be expropriated. On 3 December 1992 the Ministry instructed the relevant County Administrative Board to transfer the applicants' land to section I of the plan which covered the nesting areas of the species and which could be expropriated.
The decision on the conservation measures with regard to the applicants' property was made while the repealed 1923 Nature Conservation Act was still in force. Under the provisions of the repealed Act, conservation was to be implemented by means of establishing a nature conservation area, either as a private conservation area upon an application by the landowner or as a state-owned conservation area through a voluntary sale or exchange contract or expropriation. The objective of the State was that the landowners concerned would voluntarily sell their properties at the current price or exchange them for a state-owned area of the same value. The applicants did not take any voluntary conservation measures.
10.  By a letter of 4 December 1992 the County Administrative Board of Mikkeli stated that, according to its knowledge, the applicants owned land within a nesting area of the species. The Board recommended that the area be protected in either of the following ways:
“1.  If the applicants of their own motion were to request permanent conservation of the area, they would receive compensation in the form of a taxfree lump sum fixed according to the current value of the loss of economic income resulting from the conservation (i.e. the restricted use of the area). The area would remain in their possession and the property tax would be alleviated to reflect the lost yield. 3.  The applicants' area could also be exchanged for a state-owned area of the same value.”
The applicants objected to the planned inclusion of their property in the conservation plan, stating that no white-backed woodpecker or nest of that species had ever been spotted on their land.
On 25 January 1993 the applicants' property was inspected by representatives of the County Administrative Board and the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”). The applicants also participated in the inspection.
11.  On 3 November 1993 the applicants announced their intention to commence logging on their property according to a forestry plan drawn up by the local Forestry Board (metsälautakunta, skogsnämnden).
12.  On 18 November 1993 the County Administrative Board issued a two-year-long “activity prohibition” (toimenpidekielto, åtgärdsförbud) concerning the relevant part of the applicants' property pursuant to Section 18 of the Nature Conservation Act. The Board reasoned its decision as follows:
“The area in issue forms a suitable habitat for the white-backed woodpecker and has, indeed, been included in the Ministry's provisional conservation plan for white-backed woodpeckers.
The County Administrative Board has earlier informed the landowners about the importance of the area to the white-backed woodpecker and it has proposed in several negotiations that the area be formed into a conservation area. The Board has received, on 3 November 1993, a note informing the Board that it was planned by the landowners to commence logging in the area from 1 December 1993. Even the telephone negotiations held with the landowners since the information note was received have failed to obtain the landowners' approval of voluntary conservation of the area.”
13.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), contending that there were no grounds for the “activity prohibition”. They had not been opposed to voluntary conservation measures but had received no precise information either as to the compensation which they would receive or the other conditions (such as the time of payment and the availability of compensatory land).
In its response to the court the County Administrative Board stated, inter alia, that the conservable areas had been chosen on the basis of recommendations by a working group set up by WWF. Before making any specific offer of compensation to the applicants the Board had been awaiting a formal reaction on their part along the lines recommended in its letter of 4 December 1992. Such an initiative would not have bound the applicants or prejudged the terms of the conservation.
In its submission of 18 April 1994 the Ministry of the Environment considered that the applicants' appeal was unfounded.
In their written comments the applicants contended that they had formally requested to be informed of the proposed conservation terms.
14.  On 14 October 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court, having found no reason to amend the County Administrative Board's decision, rejected the applicants' appeal in so far as it concerned the lawfulness of the “activity prohibition”.
15.  In so far as the appeal concerned principally the expediency of the prohibition, it was transferred to the Government (the Ministry of the Environment) and rejected on 4 November 1994. The Ministry found that the area in question contained significant conservable values (without specifying any particular value).
The expropriation proceedings
16.  On 17 November 1995 the Government, by 10 votes to 7, granted permission for the expropriation of some five hectares of the applicants' property with a view to protecting the white-backed woodpecker.
17.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, requesting an oral hearing and alleging bias on the part of the officials handling the case in the Ministry of the Environment. On 11 December 1995 the appeal was received by the court.
18.  On 21 December 1995 the court requested a statement from the Ministry for the Environment. It was received on 11 March 1996. In its statement the Ministry of the Environment submitted that a white-backed woodpecker had been spotted and fresh feeding remnants had been found on the applicants' property in March 1993. According to the Ministry, there were thus sufficient findings to prove that the area was significant for the relevant species. It was also emphasised by the Ministry that the area had been examined by the most qualified experts and that it was vital for the protection of the white-backed woodpecker that the area was included in the conservation plan, in accordance with Section 1 (2) of the Nature Conservation Act, and that the State was entitled to expropriate private property with a view to forming such a conservation area, in accordance with Section 18 (1) of the Act. It was further stressed by the Ministry that the expropriation was in the general interest and would provide full compensation to the landowners.
On 9 October 1997 the court afforded the applicants an opportunity to file observations on the Ministry's statement, which they did on 31 October 1997, and informed them that all the documents pertaining to the matter were available in the court.
19.  On 31 December 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court, having found an oral hearing unnecessary and that the officials handling the case in the Ministry had not been biased, rejected the appeal as it found the land in question significant for the white-backed woodpecker.
20.  On 7 December 1998 the applicants requested a reopening of the proceedings. The request was refused by the Supreme Administrative Court on 28 March 2000.
The compensation proceedings
21.  On 23 November 1995 the Ministry of the Environment applied for, inter alia, an assessment of the compensation following the expropriation (lunastustoimitus, inlösningsförrättning). A meeting between the parties took place on 5 March 1996 and an inspection in situ was held on 3 June 1996.
22.  In a letter of 3 June 1998 the applicants were invited to submit their claims by 3 November 1998. On 27 October 1998 the applicants presented their compensation claims. On 23 December 1998 the Regional Environment Centre (ympäristökeskus, miljöcentralen) submitted their observations.
23.  On 30 March 1999 the Compensation Board decided that the applicants be compensated 488,892 Finnish marks (FIM) for the lost building rights and the expropriated forest land, FIM 14,160 for their inconvenience and FIM 13,000 for their expenses, i.e. the total amount being thus FIM 516,052 (about 86,794 euros (EUR)). The compensation was deposited on 10 May 1999.
24.  The applicants appealed against the Board's decision to the Land Court which, on 7 September 1999, having communicated the appeal to the Regional Environment Centre and held an oral hearing, ordered the applicants to be compensated FIM 703,892 for lost building rights and expropriated forest land, FIM 10,000 for the inconvenience, FIM 26,000 for their legal expenses before the Compensation Board and FIM 28,800 for their legal expenses before the Land Court, the total amount being thus FIM 768,692 (about EUR 129,285).
25.  The applicants appealed against the Land Court's decision to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), complaining, inter alia, about the amounts awarded to them for compensation and about the interest to be paid on that compensation. On 21 February 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Land Court's decision except in so far as the State's obligation to pay damages amounting to FIM 10,000 and its obligation to pay interest was concerned, ordering the State to pay interest for the period 17 November 1995 to 9 May 1999. According to the second applicant, the State paid the last outstanding part of the compensation only in May 2002.
The approval of the Natura 2000 network
26.  In the meantime, by a decision of 25 November 1996 the Ministry of the Environment made available, between 7 April and 6 June 1997, Finland's proposal for the areas to be included in the European Community's Natura 2000 network and invited the landowners' observations. On 20 August 1998 the Finnish Council of State rendered its final decision as to the proposal. The expropriated part of the applicants' property was included in the proposition as a part of the Natura area.
27.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, requesting an oral hearing. On 1 March 1999 and 14 July 1999 respectively the court received the Ministry of the Environment's submissions. As the court invited the applicants' further submissions, it informed them that all the material pertaining to the matter was available in the court. On 18 August 1999 the applicants submitted their written comments.
28.  In its decision of 14 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court, having found an oral hearing unnecessary, rejected the appeal in a decision running to 91 pages. It found, inter alia, that the land in issue was a suitable habitat for the highly endangered white-backed woodpecker.